Hi there Cliff. I am writing this so that you can post it along
with your reply. The question I'm going to present to you is pseudo-philosophical
in nature and I have Never had an atheist be able to give me an answer
to it. I will first preface the question with a brief introduction of myself
so you will know the perspective from which I am writing. I was a strong
atheist.(For your readers that do not clearly understand that term I will
say that it means that an individual has concluded that there is no god,
as opposed of simply not believing that a deity exists (weak atheism).
While I was at college and became "enlightened" I realized that
there are certain scientific truths that cannot be relinquished regardless
of your stance on the existance of deities. Not of the least of these is
the basic law of cause and effect. The sun exists (the effect) because
hydrogen exists(the cause). Hydrogen exists(the effect) because the atoms
that make it up exist(the cause). Atoms exist(the effect) because ??? exists(the
cause). In other words, there had to be a cause for the initial atoms that
came to exist or there would simply be nothingness. If there was not a
cause that is not held captive to the laws of our universe, the only other
possibility would be a state of complete nothingness. Since there is something
other than pure nothingness, it only stands to reason that something that
is not held to our natural laws, ie. super-natural, created the initial
beginnings of our universe including the very laws that hold this argument
to be true. Again, my point is simply this: Something that works outside
of the laws of physics had to create the initial matter from which our
existance stems from. This is evident because there would be absolute nothingness
if it were not for the fact that something above our natural laws created
the initial matter. There HAD to be a cause and this cause HAD to have
been performing outside of the laws of physics. For this cause to be performing
outside the laws of physics it would have to be not subjected to our natural
laws, thus supernatural. So the only logical conclusion to this argument
is that there MUST be something that performs outside the laws of the universe
since there is something other than pure nothingness. I look forward to
your reply.

Derrick Leasure

Cliff's response:

The question I'm going to present to you is pseudo-philosophical
in nature ...

I will try to address your questions, though I suspect you think
these are iron-clad, impenetrable truths. Many questions that people
ask are based on unreasonable or unjustified presuppositions, or the questions
are themselves flawed in some way, and thus cannot be answered. Some might
think this is just a polite way of calling them trick questions; however,
I have no way of knowing somebody's motives, so I take all questions at
face value and try to give everybody the benefit of the doubt as to their
intentions. (All of this is in response to your use of the term pseudo-philosophical:
I have no clue what you mean by that, but must take on your question
nonetheless because, after reading the rest of your letter, I think there
is enough to go on.

I will sift through your paragraph and address what I see to be flawed
presuppositions, premature and unjustified conclusions, and other problems.
Then, I will try to get to the gist of what I think your question is, and
address what I think your real question is, and answer my understanding
of what I think your question really asks.

Since I feel the need to clarify your question, it will be your responsibility
to point out if I have missed some aspect of your claims, and to point
this out in the clearest terms possible. This is where most of the
dialogues on our "Letters" section have failed: a good discussion
requires clarity of thought. Many people do not have the patience to engage
in a clearly stated discussion.

The question I'm going to present to you is pseudo-philosophical
in nature and I have Never had an atheist be able to give me an answer
to it.

First, I must clarify the definition of atheism: Atheism is the
lack of a god belief, for whatever reason; an atheist is somebody who is
not a theist. Within that group we find several subcategories:

Well known are the few who outright deny the existence of any
gods. This is what most theists think an atheist is, but this atheist is
in the minority among atheists. By focusing on the denial, rather than
the questions, this atheist exposes himself to criticism by theists. This
is precisely why so many theologians use this definition to describe atheists:
it is easy, on the surface, to present a solid-sounding argument against
this brand of atheism.

There are also atheists who find the definitions and descriptions of
gods and the supernatural to be logical and philosophical impossibilities,
much like the idea that a square circle is a logical (and thus physical)
impossibility. Some take this further, and talk of physical impossibilities.
It is physically impossible for an axe head to float on water in its fluid
state. These deny not only the logically impossible (a square circle) but
that which is conceivable, but is physically impossible (a fish conceiving
and giving birth to a rabbit).

Closely related are those (like myself) who do not understand any of
the definitions or descriptions of gods and the supernatural: "Explain
to me what you are talking about, and I will at least consider it. For
now, though, you have made no sense."

The rest either do not think much of religion or of religious people,
don't know if there are any gods (atheistic agnostics), have never had
a theistic idea presented to them (such as remote natives), or have not
the intellectual capacity to comprehend the notions of theism (such as
infants and imbeciles).

In all cases except the first, it is the theist who makes the god claim;
it is not the atheist who makes any claims. For a theist to define atheism
as the outright denial of a god is unfair, and is insensitive to the statements
of atheists throughout history.

If you have never had an atheist answer your question, I wonder just
what you mean by atheist. I also would like to know how many atheists you
have discussed this question with: what is your sample? As we will see,
the gist of your question (as I understand your question) is one of the
basic historical arguments between theists and atheists.

If my discussion, thus far, is acceptable to you, we can move on.

While I was at college and became "enlightened" I realized
that there are certain scientific truths that cannot be relinquished regardless
of your stance on the existance of deities. Not of the least of these is
the basic law of cause and effect....

I don't know what "enlightened" means.

I do know that every action has an equal and opposite reaction
and that matter-energy can neither be created nor destroyed. However,
since the discovery of the theory of relativity and the questions raised
by quantum mechanics, I cannot be sure if everything has a single, direct
cause. Many things and situations result from a number of factors, sometimes
interrelated, often unrelated.

Far from being as cut-and-dried as appear to assume, the idea
of causality is very complex, and raises more questions for more people
than it answers.

Philosopher and novelist Robert Anton Wilson, in his novel "The
Universe Next Door" (part of his "Schrödinger's Cat"
trilogy), summarizes this problem very poetically, in the form of a fictional
history of planet earth ("Terra"):

The use
of atomic weapons was widely blamed on a primate named Albert Einstein.
Even Einstein himself had agreed with this opinion. He was a pacifist and
had suffered abominable pangs of conscience over what had been done with
his scientific discoveries....

"Actually the discovery
of atomic energy was the result of the work of every scientist, craftsman,
engineer, technician, philosopher, and gadgeteer who had ever lived on
Terra. The use of atomic energy as a weapon was the result of all
the political decisions ever made, from the time the vertebrates first
started competing for territory.

Most Terran
primates did not understand the multiplex nature of causality. They tended
to think everything had a single cause. This simple philosophic
error was so widespread on that planet that the primates were all in the
habit of giving themselves, and other primates, more credit than was deserved
when things went well. This made them all inordinately conceited.

They also
gave themselves, and one another, more blame than was deserved when things
went badly. This gave them all jumbo-sized guilt complexes.

It is usually
that way on primitive planets, before quantum causality is understood.

This problem of causality extends to more than just sociology
and psychology, and is one of the basic problems of almost every science.

If we insist on a cause, we must address the philosophical notion of
"first cause" (or as theistic philosophers say, "The First
Cause"). If we demand that the universe needs some sort of "cause"
to explain its existence, then we must (in order to be consistent) demand
that that "cause" be explained by another "cause" and
so on. Eventually (logically) one must settle on an "uncaused cause"
or remain agnostic in this matter.

Dr. Walter Martin, most famous for his work on alternative sects of
Christianity such as Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses, most succinctly
pointed out that the Christian, by faith, settles on the Christian
God as being the "uncaused cause."

Very few atheists would go this far, postulating a "God" as an "uncaused cause," and either would think that the universe needs no explanation for its existence or, more likely, would remain agnostic on this matter.

To me, the issue is more basic. For me to think that the universe has a "cause" or a "creator," I need awareness of the creator itself.

I have never seen the end or the beginning of the universe. I do not
know what the basic units of matter-energy are, and cannot tell you
if there is a fixed amount of these units in the universe. I don't know
if these units are capable of being created from nothing or destroyed into
nothing. What I can observe (about what we know in our corner of the universe)
is that matter-energy, as we know it, is converted from one form to
another and back, but nobody has shown that something can be created from
nothing or annihilated into nothing.

So, for me to go further than "the universe is," is for me
to go beyond what I can know or verify at this point.

If I imagine the need of a creator, I do best to look for evidence of
creation. This would entail finding something that appears unnatural in
its surroundings. I can see evidence that chunk of rock has been struck
and formed into an arrowhead. I can dig to where nobody could possibly
have been, and see if this arrowhead shape occurs naturally. If it does
not, then I have one clue that it was formed by an intelligent entity.

An easier example is the famous idea of finding a watch in the desert.
How do I know that the watch is the result of a creative act, and is not
naturally occurring? First, it does not look anything like the rest of
its surroundings (like the arrowhead in the discussion above). Second,
it has the marks of having been formed by an intelligent being.

But this is not enough for me to know that the watch was created, and
is not, somehow, part of the natural environment. It is possible to be
mistaken when this is the only criteria we use to establish that the watch
was created.

Most importantly (and this point cannot be overemphasized when discussing
atheistic philosophy), I can know that the watch is the work of
a creator because I can go to Switzerland or some other place and observe
watches being created by watchmakers. It is the existence of the watchmaker
and my observation of the watchmaker at work which prove to me that
the watch was created.

So, then, to postulate the existence of a creator of matter-energy
itself (a creator of the universe), based on the characteristics of the
universe itself, is premature. We have no experience "outside"
of the universe with which to compare our observations. We cannot tell
if matter-energy is unnatural or if time-space is something that
needs "outside" intervention to be maintained. We have never
been "outside" (whatever that would mean) to make a comparison.

We can observe a volcano and explain it as the result of natural geological
causes; we no longer need to think of it as revenge from any gods. Nuclear
energy is as natural as the sunshine. We cannot go so far as to insist
that even life and consciousness are unnatural, that they cannot be explained
as the result of matter and energy and information behaving in specific
ways under specific conditions.

We don't have this luxury when pondering the existence of the universe, simply because we have never been "outside" the universe to make comparisons, and we have never encountered a "God" who can consistently be detected and observed in the act of creation.

In short, it boils down to: "Show me or describe to me your
creator." Once this is done, we can then know that the universe was
created, and has not always existed in one form or another. Until you do
this, though, your demands for a "cause" are premature.